Court issues preliminary injunction in #VoterID case.

Pennsylvanians will still have to show photo identification at
the polls during the Nov. 6 general election,
but they won’t be barred from
voting if they don’t have it, a state court judge has ruled.

In an 18-page ruling issued Tuesday morning, Commonwealth Court
Judge Robert E. Simpson blocked language in the state’s tough voter
identification law requiring people without proper identification to cast a
provisional ballot and then return to county election offices within six days
to provide proof of their identity.

The ruling by Simpson, a former Northampaton County court judge, extends
conditions that were in place for the April 24 primary, in which poll workers
asked voters for photo ID, and informed those without it of the law’s
requirements.

Simpson said the ruling could be appealed to the state Supreme
Court, but added he was following the high court’s guidance and that his word
could be the last on the subject.

In his ruling, Simpson said he was sympathetic to state
officials’ claims that they were doing everything they could to fix glitches in
the law as they popped up and get voters the appropriate ID they needed.

But with just five weeks to go before Election Day, Simpson said
he “question[ed] whether sufficient time now remains to” get state-issued ID to
every voter before the polls open.

In his ruling, Simpson noted that 9,300 to 9,500 non-drivers
photo identification cards had been issued by the state Department of
Transportation and that just 1,300 to 1,350 voting-only ID cards had been
issued through the Department of State.

Simpson said he “expected more photo IDs to have been issued by
this time,” and that he accepted the challengers’ claims that, between now and
Election Day, “the gap between the photo IDs issued and the estimated need will
not be closed.”

At a news conference on Tuesday morning, Republican Gov. Tom
Corbett, who supports the law, declined immediate comment, saying Simpson’s
decision was still under review.

Critics of the law were predicting chaos at the polls as election
workers tried to enforce a Republican-authored statute that they claim was
intended to keep traditionally Democratic voters at home.

Backers said the law was intended to ensure the integrity of
elections and the principle of “one-man, one vote.” But the law sparked a
bitterly partisan battle.

In a statement, Pennsylvania Democratic Chairman Jim Burn said
Simpson’s decision was a “significant victory in the fight to make sure
everyone has the right to vote in November.”

Still, party officials will remain “vigilant to ensure that
voters are educated about the voting process and they are protected when they cast
their vote,” Burn said.

With public polls showing support for the law, state Republican
Chairman Robert Gleason said he was disappointed by Simpson’s ruling.

“We shouldn’t have to wait for this commonsense reform to be
enacted,” he said. “Despite the empty rhetoric to the contrary, this
legislation is still about ensuring one person, one vote. Our party remains committed
to the citizens of the Commonwealth and we will do all that we can to ensure
free and fair elections.”

Simpson’s ruling allows the law to stand and “that is good,”
Pennsyvlania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny, one of the law’s
most vocal supporters said in a statement. “When votes are diluted through
fraud, the system starts to break down. Voter identification has always been
about creating a level playing field where every Pennsylvanian’s vote
represents an equal opportunity to have a voice in government.”

The state Supreme Court two weeks ago directed Simpson to
determine whether state elections officials were making it easy enough to
obtain a voting-only ID card issued by the Department of State, or if the process
for obtaining that card posed the risk of disenfranchisement.

At a two-day hearing last week, challengers to the law, including
the state branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, put on a string of
witnesses who testified that they’d made repeated trips to driver licensing
centers, only to face state employees flummoxed by complex eligibility
requirements and paperwork.

Lawyers for the state stressed the multimillion-dollar public relations
blitz intended to educate voters about the law, which would have required
people to show photo identification every time they voted.

Current Comments

Unless and until there is a searchable paper trail for electronic voting machines, which are extraordinarily susceptible to manipulation and largely unchecked, the true voter fraud in Pennsylvania (and elsewhere) will not be fixed.

Posted By: Richard Forthrast | Oct 2, 2012 12:09:19 PM

Steven, if you were an appointed poll watcher in Philly then it was your obligation to challenge the qualifications of an elector that you felt was making a fraudulent vote. That's the point of the parties getting representation in the polling place. Given that the Commonwealth, in this court case, has stated that there has never been an instance of in-person voter fraud to its knowledge, I sincerely doubt you "witnessed voter fraud."

Posted By: George | Oct 2, 2012 11:16:23 AM

This law is useless, it does not address registration fraud or absentee ballot fraud. There are no cases of voter fraud in PA at all. A law to prevent fraud that never existed and it needs to be implemented in 7 months. How much does it cost?

Posted By: Mike | Oct 2, 2012 10:58:49 AM

Why is it that liberals love calling the poor and minorities stupid, ignorant, and incapable and if not for them hand holding we probably couldn't raise the spoon to our mouths. Their claim is a lie unless they are admitting to us that those receiving welfare or receiving some form of entitlement is doing so without providing ID. This judge should have rejected their claim and allowed the law to stand. I have witnessed voter fraud working as a poll monitor in Philadelphia. I have seen how democrats even steal votes from other democrats. It's outrageous.

Actually, George, he's proven that he is capable of following the law. If it is physically impossible to issue the required number of IDs between the time the law is passed and the general election, that is de facto disenfranchisement.

Posted By: Michael Pesavento | Oct 2, 2012 10:27:48 AM

We clearly see yet another radical judge making law rather than following it. Anyone can march morons into a courtroom to say they were unable to get the proper ID when they went for it. The ACLU uses thug tactics to force gutless radical judges to follow their anti-America demands.

Posted By: William Krupa | Oct 2, 2012 10:25:52 AM

Well, he's proven that he has no spine and that he wil bow to unreasonable and political pressure. It's a shame that he did, he violated his oath. Evidently it's time to replace him too.

Posted By: George Charles | Oct 2, 2012 10:19:04 AM

Leave A Comment

NOTE: Please express your opinions in a civil and respectful manner. Insensitive, inflammatory and derogatory comments will be removed at our discretion.